Rep. Blunt: Bailout Plan Tweaks Will Help Passage

The House is expected to vote again on the $700 billion bailout bill by Friday. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, who is representing House Republicans in the negotiation, says three things have happened that could now sway GOP lawmakers who earlier rejected the measure.

Copyright © 2008 NPR. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

MELISSA BLOCK, host:

So what about the House, which has proved far more resistant to this legislation? When the House rejected an earlier version of the rescue bill on Monday, two-thirds of Republicans voted against it. And it will be up to the House Minority Whip Roy Blunt to try to bring those rejectionist Republicans in line. Congressman Blunt, welcome back to the program.

Representative ROY BLUNT (Republican, Missouri): Well, Melissa, it's nice to be with you. Again, though, I wish it was a conversation we are having in a few days, where this is all now the law of the land and how did we get done. We're trying to do that. About three things have happened since Monday that I think are helpful.

One is many of the constituents in the congressional districts around the country are seeing for the first time the potential impact on them, both in some restriction in credit at the bank, but more importantly, their pension funds, their 401Ks. Two, we've seen the SEC come up with a significant, (unintelligible) different accounting rule that our members were very concerned about in terms of valuing these assets. And three, the addition of both the tax package that stimulates the economy by continuing good tax policy and the FDIC insurance limit raised are helpful to our members.

And hopefully, we had enough people that wanted some or all of those things to happen that this allows them to look at the new facts, be able to explain how important it was that they have fought to get these things included, and have a few more yes votes later this week.

BLOCK: A few more yes votes, but Congressman, the backbone, the essential backbone of this bill is still the same, $700 billion for the Treasury to buy bad debt. Do you expect to be running into, again, a Republican buzzsaw on that?

Representative BLUNT: Well, actually, you know, actually, I think that's the problem here, Melissa, and the whole explanation. The Treasury is not buying bad debt at some bad number. The Treasury is buying assets that aren't near the 100 percent value, hopefully, at whatever the floor is. You know, you always make money if you buy right. The guy that buys the junk car by the side of the road that knows what he's doing can double his money. If I buy the junk car by the side of the road, I've got to pay somebody else within a hundred bucks to haul the junk car off.

This is a salvage operation. Nobody's ever been suggesting that the government would buy these assets at anything more than they were worth, and that the unfortunate terms that got attached to this led taxpayers to believe that their money was going to be lost when I think there's almost no chance and, in fact, under the laws now written, there is no chance that their money would be lost over the short term.

These are investments. These are not gifts to anybody. The people selling these assets are going to sell them for some substantial amount of money less than they gave for them, and the government has a substantial chance to eventually get back all the money that, certainly, all the money that the government gave, but maybe all the money that they would have even at their face value because the government has time, patience, and can unravel these assets.

BLOCK: Congressman Blunt, when you and I spoke on this program on Friday, you were heading into negotiations over the weekend that you were optimistic would bear fruit, would reach an agreement, and you did. And then there was the surprise rejection in the House. Was there a real failure here, do you think, of Republican leadership both from the White House and from Congress?

Representative BLUNT: Well, I certainly think we could and we should have done - been able to do a better job of - I think part of this was establishing an absolute deadline on when you had to have that vote. I've been in the House leadership for a long time, and that's never happened before. It's not really the fault of the majority, either.

It's just that we're up against a deadline involving a religious holiday where everybody knew you were going to vote by a certain time. We would have been a much off if we would have just said, OK, we're going to go to the floor sometime on Monday or Tuesday, when we have the votes. And that's what we need to be doing over the next few days, working to get the votes, setting no needless deadline for ourselves, and go on to the floor when we're successful, instead of telling everybody who'd be much more comfortable voting no that if you can just wait us out a little bit longer, you're going to get that chance to vote no and run to the airport.

We shouldn't let that happen this time. This is too important to the financial future of the country, too important to Main Street, and taxpayers are not bailing anybody out. Taxpayers are going in and at the true bargain basement floor of the value of an asset, buying it, and then, at some point in the future, in all likelihood making money, and they're almost certainly not losing money.

BLOCK: OK, Congressman Blunt, thanks very much.

Representative BLUNT: Good to talk to you, Melissa.

BLOCK: That's Republican Roy Blunt of Missouri, the House Minority Whip.

Copyright © 2008 NPR. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to NPR. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.

Senate OKs Bailout Package, House To Vote Friday

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT)

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) speaks to the press Oct. 1 after the Senate voted in favor of the $700 billion financial rescue package. Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

itoggle caption Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images
A day before the vote, lawmakers huddled in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (center). i i

A day before the vote, lawmakers huddled in the office of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (center). Alex Wong/Getty Images hide caption

itoggle caption Alex Wong/Getty Images
A day before the vote, lawmakers huddled in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (center).

A day before the vote, lawmakers huddled in the office of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (center).

Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Senate approved a $700 billion rescue package for the financial industry Wednesday night, giving new life to the bailout by loading it with tax breaks and other provisions tailored to help ease its passage in the House, where an earlier version fell a dozen votes short Monday.

The 74-25 Senate vote — well over the 60 votes needed for passage — comes as the House gears up to consider the massive plan on Friday.

President Bush issued a statement lauding the action in the Senate. "With the improvements the Senate has made, I believe members of both parties in the House can support this legislation," Bush said. "The American people expect — and our economy demands — that the House pass this good bill this week and send it to my desk."

Even though it looks more likely that a rescue package for the financial industry will be sent to the president this week, investors are still wary. They are concerned that the $700 billion plan won't be enough to stave off more bank failures or end up doing enough to ease the current credit squeeze. The Dow Jones industrial index ended down almost 20 points, at 10,831.07.

Investors are now looking beyond the bailout package to how this crisis is likely to affect the economy. They are bracing for nothing less than a recession.

Since the House rejected the rescue plan Monday, sending financial markets plummeting, the tenor of the conversation has clearly changed.

"Last week it was overwhelmingly, 'Vote no'; the tone has changed," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) told CNBC on Wednesday morning. "You never can predict on something like this until you have the votes, but on the Senate side there seems like there is broad, bipartisan support. If I had to guess I would say that it would pass both bodies."

Lawmakers and the White House are focusing on the economy and what small-business people and ordinary Americans have at stake.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) provided a roster of examples for reporters in which he said the financial crisis was starting to bite ordinary Americans. He said one auto dealer in his district — who has been in business for more than 50 years — called him to say he couldn't get credit. Reid said people waiting to take out mortgages were losing escrow money. The narratives were clearly aimed at getting any fence-sitters in the Senate or the House to back the bailout proposal.

The Senate measure is very different from the one Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson presented to Congress last week.

Lawmakers in the House added provisions that would dole out the $700 billion the government wants to buy bad loans in three tranches. It also gives taxpayers some assurance that they would be paid back if and when the financial institutions they rescue get back on their feet later. The bill also includes beefed-up oversight of the program and a cap on compensation for executives who have the Treasury buy up their bad mortgages.

Boosting Deposit Insurance

The Senate, for its part, added "sweeteners" that would increase bank deposit insurance and extend tax breaks. Republicans have agitated for both provisions. As it stands now, the bill would temporarily raise the limit on federal deposit insurance to $250,000 from $100,000 per account and provide more than $100 billion in tax breaks, including extending alternative minimum tax relief for middle-class taxpayers and property tax relief.

The FDIC insurance measure is meant to help restore confidence in the nation's lenders. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair sought the increase Tuesday. The Senate's tax breaks would include some $78 billion in renewable energy incentives and extensions of expiring tax breaks. Those breaks would cost about $112 billion over the next five years.

Overseas, similar guarantees have been already been promised. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Tuesday that the British government plans to raise the guarantee for bank savings to 50,000 pounds (about $90,000) from 35,000 pounds in a new banking law. Earlier that day, the Irish government guaranteed unlimited bank deposits in Irish banks for a period of two years.

Both Republican presidential nominee John McCain and Democratic nominee Barack Obama had expressed support for the Senate proposal. Both senators returned to Washington to vote on the measure Wednesday evening. Earlier, McCain told NPR's Steve Inskeep that he was "guardedly optimistic" the bill would pass.

"I think we've made improvements to the bill in a variety of ways, including the amount of money we pledge upfront, to better oversight, to allowing more options for insurance," McCain said. "I think the original version has been improved. But now, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Credit Trouble

Bush had been contacting senators to lean on them to pass the bill. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in an e-mail that the president is increasingly concerned about a seizing up in the credit markets. "This morning we're seeing increased evidence of the credit squeeze on small businesses and municipalities all across the country," Fratto said. "So it's critically important that we approve legislation this week and limit further damage to our economy."

The London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, the rate at which banks lend money to each other, climbed to an all-time high of 5.07 percent overnight. That's a pretty good barometer of how much banks trust — or don't trust — each other. Banks that have cash are hanging on to it and clearly are loath to lend to others for fear they might not get their money back. Their wariness is not misplaced. European and U.S. governments have had to rescue five banks in the past week alone.

The big problem for banks is that they "don't know who will be in business next week," said Michele Gambera, chief economist at Ibbotson Associates.

A Change In Accounting

Although senators approved the bailout plan, lawmakers aren't out of the woods yet. Conservative Republican members of the House are still calling for some sort of mandatory insurance program that financial firms would be required to buy, but it is unclear how the program would work.

They have also asked for the Securities and Exchange Commission to suspend mark-to-market accounting rules and instead require bank regulators to assess the real value of troubled assets.

Mark-to-market accounting essentially allows Wall Street firms to value (or "mark") the assets in their portfolio based on current market prices. The problem, critics say, is that under that accounting rule, sliding home prices affect not just the value of mortgages that are defaulting but of all mortgages — and therefore, of all mortgage-backed securities.

That, in turn, affects how much capital firms are required to have on hand to cover their debt exposure. And to raise that capital, firms end up having to sell other assets — which drives the price of those assets down, too. In other words, they say, mark-to-market accounting can lead to a downward spiral.

House Democrats have been opposed to both a change in mark-to-market accounting rules and to the insurance provision. It is unclear how they will work out those differences or how much the House will tinker with the bill when they get it. That said, the sense on the Hill is that everyone wants to get the vote behind them, key lawmakers say.

The Council of Institutional Investors and the CFA Institute oppose a suspension of mark-to-market — also known as "fair value" — accounting because, in their opinion, the rule offers investors transparency. "In the interest of investor confidence and the health of our capital markets and overall economy, we urge the SEC to resist calls from those with a questionable commitment to transparency and to reject any proposal that would suspend fair value accounting.

Comments

 

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.